Pax Hammericana

Extension, Not Compliance

Courtesy of the Ada Evening News:

"Ada — March 31 marked the original final date for states to request a compliance extension for the largely unknown REAL ID Act of 2005. According to Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, states that failed to file an extension by the end of March would be subject to rigorous security checks at commercial airports and federal buildings as of May 11, and residents of those states would no longer be allowed to use drivers licenses to board domestic flights. A complaince extension would push that deadline back to November 2009. The act has drawn criticism from more than two dozen states, and has led a handful of states, including Oklahoma, to pass legislation that forbids state compliance with the current REAL ID Act. While Oklahoma Governor Brad Henry did request an extension for Oklahoma, he made it clear the request for an extension did not mean a promise of compliance."

As it turns out, this was not as spineless a distinction as it might have first appeared:

"While Oklahoma was granted an extension without promising to comply, New Hampshire was denied extension when it attempted to follow suit. New Hampshire asked for a compliance extension, but it was not granted because the state said that it would not comply to the mandates. “An extension request is not an extension simply for more time, it’s an extension to move toward compliance,” said Homeland Security spokeswoman Amy Kudwa. “So it needs to be a good-faith request for extension.”

Real ID Updates

I am woefully behind on getting this information posted, but in my defense it hasn't been that easy to find out what's going on in relation to the Department of Homeland Security's generous offer to extend the deadline for implementing Real ID.  From the Bill of Rights Defense Committee:

"In the showdown between the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and a handful of states ready to defy REAL ID, the grassroots has won - for now. DHS originally set a deadline of March 31 for states to register to implement REAL ID, or to apply for extensions. Though several states have said they will not comply with REAL ID, DHS granted extensions anyway, meaning the showdown is now postponed until December 31, 2009. Previously, DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff threatened that residents of states refusing REAL ID would not be allowed to board airplanes without a passport. In a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on April 2, Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) criticized DHS for insisting on implementing a program that has been widely rejected throughout the US. "Bullying the states is not the answer," he said, "nor is threatening their residents' right to travel. From Maine to Montana, states have said no."

Grassroots organizing to resist the national identification system has resulted in at least five states bucking the federal government - Idaho, Maine, Montana, New Hampshire, Oklahoma and South Carolina. Maine was the last state to get a federal extension, because it is one of six states that do not require proof of citizenship to obtain a driver's license.

On April 1, Idaho's legislature passed a bill rejecting REAL ID driver's licenses. Lawmakers are concerned about the cost of the program and potential for invasion of privacy. The bill now goes to Governor Butch Otter for signature.

Montana, New Hampshire, Oklahoma and South Carolina also refused to comply with REAL ID, but DHS has offered those states extensions until 2010, even though each of those states wrote letters stating their refusal to accept REAL ID.

Last year, the following 17 states rejected REAL ID in their legislative sessions: the six states named above, and Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Hawai'i, Illinois, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Tennessee, and Washington."

It Never Stops

I suppose I need to hire staff or start blogging full-time, because if I wait even more than half a day to blog there is some new outrage to try to make people aware of.  Then there are just some things that blow all the other things away.  THIS is what I'm talking about in that respect.

Just in my own little corner of the world, I am actively engaged in the following issues:

Debating FOR free market health care;
working to provide a fair policy at my employer to help provide insurance to families without screwing those without families;
Working AGAINST using public resources to defeat Oklahoma House Bill 2513, which would allow concealed carry of handguns on campus;
Arguing to counteract the lies and hysteria about secondhand smoke that has led to the proliferation of smoking bans...

and on and on on.  It just never stops.  My mind is tempted to say that there must be some root cause.  And I suppose morally there is.  Certainly, as human beings, we will perpetually struggle against one another to establish our own moral vision.  But I am also reminded of the Founders' prophecy: "The price of liberty is eternal vigilence."

Still, I hope over time to discover how it is that the powerful places of policymaking were overtaken by do-gooders, authoritarians, and other seedy types -- and why it is that the struggle for liberty seems to take place largely beyond the walls of power.

Responsive Representative Government

Another re-post of some non-responsive, cloak-and-dagger correspondence with my congressman's office on the matter of a national ID card for immigrants.

The New National I.D.

With the "Real ID Rebellion" in full swing (so much so that the debate has largely died down), it is interesting to watch how politicians are trying to win public approval for a national ID by arguing for a special "card" for immigrants.

Regardless of one's position on the immigration issue, we ought to take pause to consider the dangers of profiling a minority for purposes of distributing federally-controlled cards. We also must consider the unintended consequences for those who belong to targeted groups but are in the country legally.

Rep. Frank Lucas (Oklahoma District 3) advocated this type of I.D. card in at least one townhall meeting last spring. In response, I contacted his office to clarify his stance on the issue. I was cleaning out the ODFP email account today and found a great example of responsive politics at work: I sent my last message to Lucas' office on May 9th and still have received no response. I post below the email conversation in full.


Date:
Wed, 9 May 2007 07:40:24 -0700 (PDT)
From:
hammerm@odfp.org View Contact Details Add Mobile Alert
Subject:
RE: Lucas stance on immigration
To:
"Perry, Craig"

Hi Mr. Perry,

No worries on the delay. My specific interest was on what specific proposals Mr. Lucas supports concerning stricter standards for driver's licenses and Social Security card access. I am happy to call, but in my past contact with congressional offices I have generally found that policy statements are often available in written form. Nonetheless, I am happy to do whatever is easiest for you.

Thank you for being in touch,
Mike

"Perry, Craig" wrote:

I apologize for the delay in getting back to you. Are there specific questions that you have concerning these issues? My direct line is 202-226-4695 if that would be more convenient.






__________________________________
Craig Perry
Legislative Assistant
Office of Congressman Frank D. Lucas (OK-03)
2311 Rayburn Building
p. (202) 225-5565
f. (202) 225-8698


From: hammerm@odfp.org [mailto:hammerm@odfp.org] Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 2:19 PMTo: Perry, CraigSubject: Lucas stance on immigration

Dear Mr. Perry,

I am a resident of Stillwater , which is also where my organization is based. I have been reading in the papers about Mr. Lucas' position on immigration reform, especially as concerns stricter standards for keeping driver's licenses and Social Security cards out of the hands of illegal immigrants. I am interested in learning more about his specific proposals on this issue. Your office's main switchboard told me you were the person who deals with this issue.

Thank you very sincerely for your help,
Mike